Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

hussain_mkj writes "A Hong Kong-based company, Nokero, has introduced what it claims is the world's first solar powered lightbulb. Nokero is trying to replace traditional kerosene lamps in developing countries with its solar-powered N100 LED lightbulbs. The bulb is about the same size as normal incandescent bulbs, and will shine for two hours when charged for a day. The company claims that the new bulb is five times as bright as a kerosene lamp and uses 1/200th the energy. It will cost $15 for one and $480 for 48."

In a third world country? A house does not imply running water, sewage, or any kind of power generation infrastructure. There are many countries where the power is of poor quality (very spiky, random surges, brownouts, etc), intermittent, or only available between certain hours.That said, this bulb will run for two hours? I don't care how long it takes to charge, if it can't run for more than two hours then what's the point? A lightbulb that only functions a little bit after dark isn't going to help any

That said, this bulb will run for two hours? I don't care how long it takes to charge, if it can't run for more than two hours then what's the point? A lightbulb that only functions a little bit after dark isn't going to help anyone do anything in the dark.

No, a light bulb that functions for two hours after dark will help someone do something for two hours after dark.

You do realize that a tree does not block all sunlight in a everywhere under its brances? Indeed, it is often very bright, even in the shadow from a tree -- certainly bright enough to run a solar cell. There is also the issue of the angle of sunlight. Most of the day, the sunlight is likely to come from the side (not the top) of the tree.

Hence that four angled panels on the top to catch some sun at any time of day.This is not new and probably not even cheaper than the hand assembled devices being used now. What is new is being able to get it already assembled and in bulk.

During the day you hang it from the metal clip on a branch (with no foliage) or a string (like a washing line). Or, simply place it on a safe surface somewhere that catches the sun.

At night you either hang it from the metal clip or screw it in. By the picture, it looks like there is a black "on" button at the top that may work such that screwing it in further switches it on (would have to remove the clip though).

Because during the day typically they're working trying to eek out enough to survive. And in the evening when it's too dark to work it's a great time to try and learn something. You know better oneself.

The problem is what does mean a "developing country"?
Really, people apply that term from places with reasonable life quality (but considered "developing" for some reason) to places lacking a funcional government and where famine is widespread.

In the not-so "developing countries" people won't care since - unless it's a desolate area - even the poorest houses are connected to the power grid.

Diplomats adjust terms to keep from offending nations where people have little income and limited freedom. During the cold war there was the 1st world (NATO, neutral western Europe, Japan), 2nd world (Warsaw Pact), and 3rd world (everyone else). Late in the cold war, 3rd world was replaced by developing nations to counter the Soviet goal of creating Communist revolutions, and indicate the new US policy economic development (replacing the anti-Communist strongman policy). After the cold war saw the creating of the emerging economies (BRIC {Brazil, Russia [after deflating the CIA myth of a Soviet economy as large as the US], India, and China}, Asian tigers {primarily South Korea and Singapore} and former purgatory countries {South Africa [Aparthid] and Israel [peace treaty with Egypt]. The former 1st world is now called developed. So now we have Developed, Emerging and Developing. Of course people closer to the academic world will know the newest buzzwords.

The term is indeed pretty flexible and highly political. Animal Planet has all these "animal cop" shows. Sometimes very hard to see the difference between a show in South Africa/England and the US of A.

C'mon, it is exactly in a "developing" country where you will find real freedom.

If by freedom, you mean freedom from government services, including police, education and health services, then yes, you'd be right.

I live in a country with a lot of freedom as defined above. Trust me, the malaria, dengue, lack of dentists and occasional outbreaks of mob violence make it a taste that few would willingly acquire, given the choice....

"There are two ways a truly civilised and advanced nation can be defined. One, it has a fleet of nuclear submarines, and two, it does not have the death penalty. That leaves you with France and Britain. And that’s about right. "

Ikea was selling a $19.99 solar reading lamp that if you bought one, one was sent to Africa. Even if they didn't make a profit, that means the light cost significantly less than $15 dollars individually. Plus the LED is bright and lasts six hours easily.

Developing countries are way ahead of the "green" curve because:1) Electricity is expensive2) Electricity isn't that reliable.

On my recent trip to India I was quite surprised, especially out in Sikkim. Even though the area is very 'poor' (by American standards) almost everyone had florescent lights. We stayed on Yangsum Farm [yangsumfarm.com]. The guy had a solar array. WWII sub batteries for backup. He was in process of building an entire passive 'off the grid' building.

Every single hotel room I stayed in had a slot for the key. You walked in, put the key in the slot and the power came on to the room. If you took the key, you lost power. It was annoying trying to charge stuff, but how many times to people leave their rooms in the USA and leave a TV on, some lights, etc?

So yes, developing countries know about this and they'll most likely make use of it long before anyone in the USA even cares.

The only time I don't like it is when the ambient is 30 Celsius or better out and taking your key out shuts down all electric power - to include the power to the air conditioner...so you come back to a miserable, sweltering room.

Every single hotel room I stayed in had a slot for the key. You walked in, put the key in the slot and the power came on to the room. If you took the key, you lost power. It was annoying trying to charge stuff, but how many times to people leave their rooms in the USA and leave a TV on, some lights, etc?

You know you can put a business card/membership card/whatever in there and it works?

Most hotels in the UK have this as well now, even those costing USD 500 a night for the cheapest room...

Depends on the style of the hotel I guess, if it is a relatively new hotel owned by a larger chain, then it may have a slot for the key. But most hotels I've been in (and I've been in quite an number of (normal priced) hotels for my work that still did without. I imagine that at higher priced hotels this kind of thing is more common.

I like the fact that they keep cost down that way. It's also convenient that the lighting of the whole room comes up when inserted. At some hotels the first time you use the key

Well the product on the website you linked costs $39.99 - the product from TFA is $10 - $15, so I'd say no it wouldn't be cheaper. Also the Nokero lamp is really a more suitable design for indoor use. I don't think it's a technological breakthrough, but it seems like a design which is well-suited for the application.

You can get the 48 light deal and setup a grid of lights to provide night time lighting for six hours and you won't have to pay the electricity bill.

But will anyone in the developing countries know or care about this?

Er, yes and yes.

I live in the developing world and a family to whom I'm quite close have two solar-powered lanterns already. They use them for illumination as well as to light their roadside shop in the evenings. The lamp also has a plug for mobile phones and a mini-USB connector. Its solar panels are significantly larger than this light bulb's and they're all on one side, so you can use them all at once.

The lanterns are pretty expensive by local standards - almost a week's pay. But they're much cheaper to

Solar Aid has several solutions that are better. They promote locally manufactured or at least assembled devices. They help with PV systems. They have an interesting light that provides more light for a longer time, it's far cheaper, it charges phones and other small gadgets and was designed by students at Leeds. Plus Minus Design was also able to address the need for local maintenance with a simply designed product assembled through snap-in parts and repairable with basic tools. http: [cnet.com]

Another big reason that people drive without headlights is that they believe it improves their gas mileage (after all, there's less to power, right?). I mean, it SEEMS obvious, and when gas is so expensive, why take chances?

I'll bite the karma bullet on this, you're being relatively shortsighted and blind in your insinuation they are stupid.

It actually does improve your vision.I'll give you a simple experiment. Go outside at night, shine a bright flashlight(halogen makes this work better) at the ground. stare at that flashlight for a good 5 minutes.Now turn the stupid thing off, and wait 5 minutes.Once your eyes adjust suddenly you

They are being stupid, and your ridiculously obvious "experiment" does nothing to prove otherwise. It goes without saying that if you have no artificial light available that waiting until your eyes adjust to the darkness gives you better vision. The point is that it's better vision only in comparison to what you would have if you had no light at all. How you've managed to take this answer and extrapolate it to night-vision being superior to a source of light in the darkness is stupefying. If you truly belie

Can you, with normal headlights on, see a pedestrian a kilometer away?

On a night of full moon, I can see them pretty well with lights off. I may not spot the difference between a slick of oil and a pothole a meter away, but I can pretty well see the curve of the road, the bigger obstacles, very far buildings and so on. The moment I switch headlights on my vision is limited to ~100m. And the moment a car with headlights on approaches from behind a hill/bump (or the asshole doesn't switch to passing beam) my view range is pretty much zero, for the duration of the encounter and about 10s afterwards.

And an additional useful side effect: the other cars on the road, which are far more dangerous than the pedestrians and animals that might be out there, will also know you're there, from a *very long* way away.

Try to see a reflective sash or shirt one kilometer away in headlights.

The main lights give you up to 300m range of visibility. Reflective objects may be visible at twice that distance. At 1km away - not a even a shade of chance, especially that you are dazzled by your own headlights reflected from nearby objects.

Note brightness of a light source drops off with square of the distance from it. And in case of reflective surfaces, the distance counts twice - from light source to the surface and

stare at that flashlight for a good 5 minutes.Now turn the stupid thing off, and wait 5 minutes. [...] Yes, lights help when there's no moon, but if you have a moon, lighting destroys your night vision.

The trick is to leave the lights on. Then you don't need night vision.

And your missing the other function of the lights - to be seen by other drivers.

Depending on the phase of the moon, that could very well be true. I've noticed that on a full moon, I could much further out including silhouettes of every obstacle. With headlights however, the level of detail, color, and clarity is superior...but only where it shines. Because my pupils are now constricted, I no longer see anything else in the dark (where the light is not shining).

With headlights however, the level of detail, color, and clarity is superior...but only where it shines. Because my pupils are now constricted, I no longer see anything else in the dark (where the light is not shining).

Call me old fashioned, but the areas illuminated by correctly fitted headlamps correspond quite closely with where you should be looking while you're driving.

[...] most central American rural natives would drive without headlights at night. They felt that it actually improved their ability to see.

It takes roughly 45 minutes to fully restore your night vision after being exposed to something like a car's headlights. I don't know if you meant that they felt the practice received from driving at night improved their vision in general, but there is at least some truth to the statement.

Well it's been quite a few years now since I was driving in Brazil, so this may be out of date. However the problem I'd encountered in rural Brazil was that there were no reflectors on the side of the road, no reflective markings on the road itself etc. So driving with the headlights on was a considerably different experience than in Europe or the US, you really didn't much guidance for the road ahead. It was quite scary driving, actually.

The manufacturer of the light bulb might think the sun is an unlimited, universal energy source. Unfortunately, in big cities, only the rich could afford the sun. For ordinary people, there is not enough sun light to sustain the growth of a health plant at their windows.

Big cities usually have at least the beginnings of electrical distribution infrastructure; the solution in a big city is to improve the transmission infrastructure, and the generation infrastructure. An investment in these two things will give benefit to a relatively high number of people for each (say) coal fired plant you turn into a reliable generating station, or whatever your source of power is. The centralisation that defines the big city he

Well, considering that these: http://www.siliconsolar.com/solar-garden-lights.html [siliconsolar.com], have been around for many years, I think 'first' is a bit of a stretch. They may have made them CHEAPER, and longer lasting, or more useful, but certainly not FIRST.

Also I did hear about solar powered kerosene lamp replacements being deployed in West Africa about three years or more ago. I thought they were actually cheaper than this although some assembly is required.

In my International Management course we learned about an initiative to work with 3rd world countries to help provide 1 Watt Solar Panels, rechargeable batteries, and LED arrays as kerosene replacements. The systems only cost about $100 at the time (2 years or so ago) and it paid itself off in about 5 months due to the price of kerosene.

Ever used those things? They suck. It's basically a single, low-power LED rigged up to a rechargeable battery. They're generally designed to illuminate a walkway at night (VERY little light output - just enough to see by), and all the ones I've used are barely able to do that.

A light bulb suggests that there's actually a meaningful amount of light. The little garden lights don't compare, even if the concept is similar.

As an aside, the garden lights can be had for about five bucks each (in a pack of six or e

Ever used those things? They suck. It's basically a single, low-power LED rigged up to a rechargeable battery. They're generally designed to illuminate a walkway at night (VERY little light output - just enough to see by), and all the ones I've used are barely able to do that.

They do what they are intended for. Double the solar panel area, increase the light output, switch the lights so you can use them for a couple of hours at a time. Now you have a product which may be the difference between an African kid being able to study at night, or not. More light would be good but some is better than nothing at all.

Actually if we're talking solar path lights some of them are actually fairly bright and last the entire evening using two LEDs and two batteries.

In theory you could take a bunch of them without the ground spikes, punch holes in a tin roof, and install them so the solar panel is on the outside while the light is on the inside. (Sealing the roof for leaks obviously)

Do that with enough of them and you have bright enough light to read at night.

Yeah reading this article I am plotting a project for next weekend. I have an old solar panel intended to boost a car battery when the car is not in use. I have an old six volt gel cell battery okay for float charging. I can buy a single white high intensity LED.

The problem is that when I go into the garage at night it is too dark to see where I am going. The florescent light takes too long to start but a little light which is always on will make all the difference. The idea would be to mount the solar cell

We've got ultra-bright 1W diodes, now. Two companies I know of have smashed 150 lux/w and thus are surpassing HIDs in visual efficiency. I think Cree smashed the 200 lux/w, which just blows away any HID out there. Get two High-capacity NiMH batteries (each holding about 4w of power) and a joule thief hooked to a micro-amplifier and solar panel, and you could light a desk for a night, at about the same cost as this solution in TFA, and at very likely near the same price line.

Isn't this the exact same thing as the exterior lights people stick in the ground along their steps and walkways around their homes? They charge in the daytime and come on at night for a couple hours. This is just a slightly different form factor is all.

And I don't think it is accurate calling it a "lightbulb". It is a "bulb-shaped" electronic device, but it is not a bulb.

Except those LED lights ($3.99 at Walmart) tend to shine for six hours or more, not a paltry 2 hours. I have a couple single LED lights among the set in my yard that will often still be lit when I leave for work in the morning.

I was thinking the same thing. But I suppose if you are one of the wealthier people where $15 is only a weeks salary, you might consider this. Afterall, you won't get electrical lighting any other way. But then again, it's probably still much more affordable to go with kerosene.

This isn't meant for third world applications, despite the company propaganda. It is meant for North Americans, for patio lanterns and camping and such. There's no reason that a third world solar powered bulb would be shaped like [com.com] a North American bulb [bulbhalogen.com], complete with screw threads moulded into the plastic on the top. It's meant to be cute. Third world doesn't buy cute, they buy functional. North America buys cute.

From Nokero's website:

Coleman lanterns are popular, but the Nokero is like a solar Coleman lantern powered by sunlight rather than gas lantern technology, so it can also be used for recreational purposes. It can provide emergency light during or after natural disasters, it can be an outdoor recreation and camping lantern, or it can be used in and around outdoor patios.

My first thought was the kerosene lamp is also a bit more rugged. They can generally take a few hits, dirt and even a good bit of rust. Conversely, I get a sense the solar powered replacement may break with a few days of usage.

I have owned a couple of Boglights for a few years now and they've been solidly reliable.
They can last up to 6 hours on a days charge, they work as both a flashlight and an area light, they give 6 levels of light, and are designed for developing countries. However, they cost twice as much, $30 a light.
This page has a lot of technical information about them,
http://www.bogolight.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BOGO-BUYONESN2&Show=TechSpecs [bogolight.com]

They look better thought out than the light bulb shaped N100 LED bulbs. The solar panels on the N100 are pointed in such a way that only half of them could be put even approximately facing the sun and are pointed down at a steep angle if hung up to charge. I would rather be able to aim the solar panel. Over all it looks like the N100 looks like it was designed by marketing, those Boglights seem a bit better thought out.

the angle at which they are placed would probably mean that pointing the screw end directly to the sun, will ensure each panel catches only a fraction of the light compared to one panel placed at a 90 degree angle to the sun

i'm pretty sure the geometry of the panels on this thing could be optimised to give two-three times better performance, but that would mean sacrifing the cute 'lightbulb' shape.

Wait, since these bulbs also give off light, if you use the light from the solar-charged bulb to charge more bulbs, you can then use those bulbs when the first one goes out, and use the second round of bulbs to re-charge the first round, ad infinitum! Suck on that von Mayer [wikipedia.org]!

Ok, first of all, it's not a light bulb, it's LEDs. Secondly, it's not the first, solar powered light has existed for decades! Third, I hope they didn't get a patent for the idea of combining solar cells with LEDs.

Just look at it. The design has abysmal panel coverage. Do note that there seems to be a couple mm of margin around the solar panel within the area covered by the clear plastic meniscus. They could have rather trivially increased the panel coverage by a factor of two, and with a bit more sweat it could have been 3x larger. I'd also like to see how they waterproofed the switch's operator (the black button protruding on top). It's not a trivial task, as not only you get water going straight down onto the switch, but also you get dirt from your fingers that will act to eat away any O-ring-like seal arrangements.

I'd also like to know what sort of power conditioning electronics do they use to charge the rechargeable cells, and to extract power from them. Designing efficient micropower power converters is quite an undertaking if you don't have an engineer who has done that once or twice (and done it well).

Having seen the abysmal design of common solar-powered garden lights, I don't really have high hopes. Now if anyone wonders: your typical $3.99 garden light sucks at power conversion efficiency. And by sucks I mean it's underperforming by 60%+. And the cell life is shortened as well: it's hard to maintain cell life without a power converter when all you have for energy source is PV cells.